Coolest gizmo ever in Gizmag.
And hey - it doesn't say "Eco", "Green" or "Sustainable".
22nd February, 2013 @ 9:30 p.m. (California Time)
If it works, awesome!
22nd February, 2013 @ 10:46 p.m. (California Time)
That was not designed by someone who knows what he is doing. The four wheel undercarriage is much too heavy and the air intake is inefficient. I also doubt the wing provides enough lift for a reasonable takeoff/landing speed.
23rd February, 2013 @ 12:48 a.m. (California Time)
Dakoroman, Sydney: Skyflash shown here is still a complex machine.
ROMANOZ PROPULSION SYSTEM = THRUST+LIFT=AT THE SAME TIME
Romanoz Flying Machine = goes up in the air from a still position/ VTOL, hovers, enters into the water/ diving/ gliding, then breaching out of the water, back in the air, landing with complete safety. Human powered, or powered. All with the same Propulsion System: ROMANOZ.
For air/ gas/ water/ snow/ sand.
Airplanes without wings, "helicopters" without rotor blades, Deltaplanes/ wings human powered/ or powered with no need for thermal air/ hills/ wind, start flying from the street/ park, landing anywhere. Many, many applications for air/ water/ underwater.
23rd February, 2013 @ 3:18 a.m. (California Time)
Awesome project, looking forward for more news!
According to their website the plane weighs about 25kg. 130kg is the total weight including the pilot - Easy to carry I think...
23rd February, 2013 @ 4:59 a.m. (California Time)
Taking off is optional, landing is compulsory. Would like to see a (safe) landing.
23rd February, 2013 @ 5:17 a.m. (California Time)
Landing IS NOT the most dangerous part of any flight. Taking off is the most dangerous because you're going slow, running out of runway and you can go into an unrecoverable stall or not gain enough altitude to clean obstacles.
23rd February, 2013 @ 5:30 a.m. (California Time)
Combine the propulsion and wings with the Jean-Yves Blondeau designed "roller suit" and that could be an even more interesting device. I'd definitely NOT want to take off or land that thing on anything but a smooth paved surface. A dirt or grass runway would beat the doodoo out of you.
OR remove the wings and have a jet propelled roller suit. Hmmm...
23rd February, 2013 @ 8:27 a.m. (California Time)
Awe Todd don't let those guys on your radio make you afraid of the future. It's going to be "Eco", "Green" "Sustainable" and have jetpacks. We're lucky to see it all unfold here on Gizmag. Great project, keep us posted.
23rd February, 2013 @ 9:45 a.m. (California Time)
Sorry, I'll believe this thing can fly only if it ever takes off. People have been "designing" these things for ages. None have flown. I think somebody's been watching The Rocketeer again.
23rd February, 2013 @ 10:01 a.m. (California Time)
I applaud the effort but sticking your feet into the jet exhaust to steer? Thats like dragging your toes on a gokart for brakes.
23rd February, 2013 @ 3:12 p.m. (California Time)
Now while I may have reservations about the configuration or the ability to land safely, I would NEVER say that the people designing it know nothing about "What they are doing".. Slowburn et al must not have seen RCpowers flying bus... Hey if a flying school-bus works, then why wouldn't this.... (in principle), Im hoping that they have made a flying RC model, or it may be a bit dangerous on the first try.. Note, the Pilot appears to have a Licence therefore has at least sat in the Left seat a few times..
It may be about weight distribution.(CG) and wheel location.. Now the wing concept, though rudimentary "may" work well (I haven't tested the config, so don't know... ) Fowler type flaps, or telescopic wing sections DO increase low-speed planform area, and thereby available lift)
BUT, will it rotate, will it get off the ground.... and at what speed will the wing be able to rotate (will it work with the knees dragging on the ground??
I still tend towards movable control surfaces (TE spoiler/flap elevons), rather than weight shift, also, would it be better to give the landing gear a bit of damped travel??? (compare the gear travel on an F-18 etc) allowing the craft to have a decent ink rate without the pilot's head being permanently rearranged...
Of course it may be designed to be landed under parachute in reality, therefore the wheels, can just be a drop-off trolley....
Oh also, is there a need for the RC controller??just another data-link to fail, a simple switch system will allow on-board control of movable wing surfaces and throttle... leave the RC controller for an observer on the ground...
24th February, 2013 @ 2:18 a.m. (California Time)
I know someone is going to kick me, but why couldn't the flyer/pilot/birdman just lie tummy down on the wing that is below him. That way, it is easier to mount the wheels and to protect the flyer in case of a bumpy takeoff or landing? Also, it would be more reassuring to the pilot, when he is up there, to be resting on a wing.
24th February, 2013 @ 7 a.m. (California Time)
TV & Movie shooting
007 Bond sequence since Thunderball,
Rentals & Sales
Search & Rescue
Host sky safaris overflying key locales & landing to camp base site mobile then fly again next day etc.
24th February, 2013 @ 7:25 a.m. (California Time)
Franz Reichelt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Reichelt
24th February, 2013 @ 11:17 p.m. (California Time)
One simple way to save fuel is to have a catapult assisted launch, or a tow line as in glider launching.during the Second World War, the ME163 had a drop-off undercarriage, and landed on a skid.
The so-called heatproof boots look like they were just wrapped in gaffer tape. A simple thrust deflector would seem a better idea to me.
Lay on top of the wing does seem like a good idea, although putting the jet engine on the underside would also be required, otherwise it can be a rather hot ride!
Having variable geometry wings does seem to complicate the design quite a lot, just for the sake of getting some extra speed. I would prefer a simple, fixed wing design. Less to go wrong.
Has anyone tried a jet powered hang glider? That has a simple fabric sail on a suitable framework.
25th February, 2013 @ 6:58 a.m. (California Time)
I feel like I was watching a cartoon or an old time, first-attempt-at-flight video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkLKNTSHhwU.
25th February, 2013 @ 8:24 a.m. (California Time)
Jet powered hang glider is something totally different as the jet engine becomes effectively useless at those extremely low speeds.
Here´s someone who tried that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AXuy2-YoQY
But I don´t think that hang glider flying will be comparable at all to flying this plane...
Also I don´t think they use a variable geometry wing. As far as I understand it they have a special 'outer wing' that is needed for lift and stability.
Isn´t a mass hanging under a fixed point more stable than a mass above it?
25th February, 2013 @ 8:44 a.m. (California Time)
130kgs of life and material considered in a spin, tumble, turbulence, only held up by a slow speed cambered wing made of thin bits of wood and plastic skin being put thru such stresses is frightening.
Jetmans one piece* composite wing seems a much safer and logical option thats also proven itself excellent- strength in small wing design with a very high loading is paramount.
The idea of flying head first so close to the ground in something thats not always in contact with it is crazy and dumb. Jetman could achieve this idea safer with roller blades most probably, but the takeoff phase of flight is complicated actually and fraught with dangers- as he well knows in such detail being an airline pilot.
25th February, 2013 @ 8:50 a.m. (California Time)
Eat your heart out Wile E. Coyote!
Artisteroi Rlsh Gadgeteer
25th February, 2013 @ 8:56 a.m. (California Time)
This is the second post I've seen about the Romanoz propulsion system, the other one involving outboard motors. Not found on the web, no link provided. Time for Sydney Dakoroman to fish or cut bait.
Bruce H. Anderson
25th February, 2013 @ 9:02 a.m. (California Time)
Been there, done that. Back in the 80's I had a Gemini power unit for my hang glider. It consists of two 100 cc chainsaw engines turning 28" dia. propellers. They are mounted either side of the pilot. Because a hang glider pilot needs both hands to control the wing on takeoff, the throttle is operated by a "mouth throttle" an oversize clothes pin looking thing that you have in your mouth and chomp down to "step on the gas" . To take off, you run with the glider until the wing lifts itself and then give it the gas and up you go! A real rush! It's a little scary with those props turning 10,000 RPM about two feet on each side of your head, and two unmuffled two stroke engines wide open are really loud. I flew it a few times before graduating to a conventional ultralight airplane, (a little less stressful). I sold the unit to a guy that was going to power large RC model airplanes with the engines. A guy named Ed Sweeney manufactured the units. I don't think he still makes them. They actually worked pretty good. If you google; gemini hang glider power pack, they have some info on them. Jeff
25th February, 2013 @ 9:45 a.m. (California Time)
You'd have to be totally nuts to try to fly this thing! It's a broken neck or worse waiting to happen.
25th February, 2013 @ 9:53 a.m. (California Time)
+1 Nantha- sounds like a much more efficient design.
Even more awesome would be: http://minijunkie.jigsy.com/files/images/DEHellionsA.jpg -
Go Green Goblin Go!
25th February, 2013 @ 10:36 a.m. (California Time)
I would love to see a refined and working model, plus I'd help sell em(looking for a job). I'd also love to own one.
25th February, 2013 @ noon (California Time)
All it takes is a stray beer can or a cross gust to ruin your day.
25th February, 2013 @ 12:51 p.m. (California Time)
Take a page from the RC airplane crowd... a bungee-slingshot system will get you airborne MUCH quicker and smoother, and with enough speed and the proper angle of attack to avoid a stall.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the comment that take-offs are harder than landings. Obviously you've never actually flown before. Landings are MUCH harder. If you miscalculate your glide angle or stall speed, you smash into the ground -- fatally. Whereas on a take off, as long as you have sufficient runway, you just go full-throttle and accelerate until you are airborne... at which point there is nothing to crash into. Any novice can take off on their own -- they let you do that on your first flight lesson. But it takes lots of practice before they let you attempt your first landing.
So this dolly system... it's nothing new. The Germans used the same system on the first jets and "rocket-planes" in WW2. I'm sure there is added lift from the WIG-effect being that close to the ground... but jeez that would be scary getting up to 100mph+ take-off speed with your face just inches from the asphalt.
25th February, 2013 @ 1:09 p.m. (California Time)
The 1980's GI-JOE personal flying wing, finally (almost) real.
25th February, 2013 @ 4:34 p.m. (California Time)
This could ad new meaning to "making a nose landing!"
25th February, 2013 @ 6:30 p.m. (California Time)
Yes David, some guys have put a jet engine on a hang glider. I saw one myself about 25 years ago. A guy was having a yard sale of sorts out in the desert near Hesperia, and he was selling some stuff that a former tenant had to leave behind when he was evicted. It was one of those propane powered Gluhareff pressure jet engines with about a 6" diameter exhaust tube. He thought that it was a rocket engine, so I had to explain to him what it was and how it worked.
25th February, 2013 @ 9:07 p.m. (California Time)
I am so encouraged by people who dare to act on their dreams.
With that said however, may I suggest we look to the past as well.
Wendall Moore in the '60's at BellAeroSystems made a functioning "Jet Belt".
And yes, it was a "turbine" powered jet pack. It flew in excess of 3000 times with no incidents and could stay aloft for 30-40 minutes.
This was the offshoot of his hydrogen peroxide rocket belt that was all the rage back then. (but could only fly for 20 seconds)
We seem to forget the ideas that have worked such as Wendall Moore's Jet Belt and other concepts like the Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep. What I would like to see is today's technology blended with those concepts.
26th February, 2013 @ 4:11 a.m. (California Time)
This brings to mind more than ever SOMETHING not over everyone's head with the stuff that's available today THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE. Where is the Radio Control Test Dummy, that can function as test pilot for gadgets like these and to fine tune stunt apparatus.
26th February, 2013 @ 6:55 a.m. (California Time)
ever hit a small stone whilst flying along on a skateboard? now imagine the same bone jarring dead stop with a rocket strapped to your back.... You've Been Framed video in the offing...
26th February, 2013 @ 3:30 p.m. (California Time)
It is a joke. It is a really bad joke and worse it is a poor effort. Anyone fooled into thinking that controlled flight would be possible with this ridiculous waste of time and materials, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.
26th February, 2013 @ 9:09 p.m. (California Time)
Gizmag can't possibly think this is a legit design. Next you'll be posting a 'Jetsons' cartoon as the "Next Breakthrough in Air Travel."
28th February, 2013 @ 11:13 p.m. (California Time)
@Mivoyses How about applying current technology to the Williams Aerial Systems Platform aka WASP?
A large number of engines suitable for exactly that are due to come available soon. The US military is decommissioning a bunch of jet powered cruise missiles deemed obsolete. Those missiles use the same engine the WASP prototypes did.
8th March, 2013 @ 5:50 p.m. (California Time)
All I can see in with my imagination is the pilot of this thing looking like something out of the movie "Jackass."
You know. Suddenly the rocket motor fires, the pilot's a** comes up behind his head as his face goes straight into the ground, and the jets push him face first for a quarter of a mile until his support team rushes up as Super Dave Osborne stands up and his head falls off and rolls onto the floor.
12th December, 2014 @ 1:32 p.m. (California Time)